Archive for the ‘USFWS’ Tag

Defenders just scored a big victory in court that will provide needed protections for North Carolina’s dwindling population of wild red wolves. A federal judge in North Carolina has issued a preliminary injunction barring the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from removing native wolves from the wild unless they pose an imminent threat to human safety or property.

In recent years, the Service had been removing wolves simply because some vocal landowners don’t want them there – a significant departure from years of prior practice. Lawyers for Defenders of Wildlife and our allies argued in a court hearing on September 14 that a preliminary injunction was needed to stop the agency from further harming the world’s only population of wild red wolves. Today, Judge Terrence Boyle of the Eastern District of North Carolina issued a ruling preventing the Service from unnecessarily trapping and killing any more wolves.

Defenders brought the federal agency to court because under the Service’s recent management, the red wolf population had declined from more than 100 animals to fewer than 45. Recently, the Service had not only stopped key conservation actions to protect and enhance the wild population, but even authorized private landowners to kill red wolves on their land. The Service has also been capturing wolves throughout the five-county red wolf recovery area in North Carolina, and holding them for weeks or months before releasing them into unfamiliar territory, separated from their mates and pack.

This victory could help stabilize the wild population while the Service continues to deliberate over the fate of what was once a model carnivore reintroduction program. Earlier this month, the agency announced a proposal to trap and remove most of North Carolina’s red wolves and put them into captivity, abandoning all protective efforts except in one federal wildlife refuge (and adjacent bombing range) in Dare County. Lately, that habitat has supported just a single pack of wild wolves.

Defenders and our allies have lots of work ahead to convince the Service to protect North Carolina’s wild red wolves, reinvigorate the red wolf reintroduction program, and find additional places for wolves to live in the Southeast. Today’s court victory gives us – and the red wolves – a fighting chance.

Just 89 of these Alaskan wolves remain, but are they endangered? The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) announced Tuesday that Southeast Alaska’s Alexander Archipelago wolf does not warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), even though its population has seriously declined on the Prince of Wales Island.

The USFWS suggests in a November Species Status Assessment that the Alexander Archipelago wolf population occupying Prince of Wales Island declined by 75 percent between 1994 and 2014, from 356 to 89 individuals.

The agency identified a number of stresses impacting local populations, but “most of them have the potential to affect wolves indirectly, not directly.” Notable stresses included timber harvest, climate-related events, road development, and wolf hunting.

And while climate changes and timber clearing can limit the population of deer, the wolves’ main food source, wolf hunting is the only stressor with direct mortality. Road development may seem like an arbitrary stressor, but the USFWS says it gives hunters and trappers better access to wolf populations.

All of these stresses affect individual wolves either directly or indirectly, but the USFWS said in a Tuesday press release that the island wolves don’t qualify for ESA protection because “the population does not persist in an unusual or unique ecological setting; loss of the population would not result in a significant gap in the range; and the population does not differ markedly from other populations based on its genetic characteristics.”

But wildlife advocates say the USFWS is giving up on the Southeast Alaska wolves.

“We think the US Fish and Wildlife Service didn’t get it right and that they’ve overlooked some important things,” Larry Edwards, a Forest Campaigner with Greenpeace, told Alaska Public Media. “It’s very odd to us that the Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledges a 75 percent decline in the Prince of Wales wolf population and then basically writes that population off.”

The USFWS predicts the overall population of Alexander Archipelago wolves to be between 850 to 2,700 individuals, with approximately 62 percent living in British Columbia and 38 percent occupying southeastern Alaska. But advocates for Alexander Archipelago wolf protection under the ESA say the USFWS’s wide range estimates of population levels prove their lack of knowledge about the species’ actual status.

And in an indirect way, the USFWS has admitted to sacrificing this smaller wolf population.

“We do have concern for the wolf population on Prince of Wales Island,” Drew Crane, the Regional Endangered Species Coordinator at USFWS, told Maine News. “But Prince of Wales Island in general only constitutes six percent of the range-wide population of the Alexander Archipelago wolf.”

The USFWS predicts the current population of Alexander Archipelago wolves on Prince of Wales Island will continue to decrease by another eight to 14 percent over the next 30 years.

To some Alaska lawmakers, this sacrifice is just fine with them. If the USFWS had found the Alexander Archipelago wolf worthy of endangered species status, the listing process would have limited or entirely prevented timber sales in the Tongass National Forest, the largest national forest in the United States.

“…The attempt by some environmental groups to list the wolf seemed to be an effort solely to end the last of the remaining timber industry in Southeast Alasaka,” US Senator Lisa Murkowski (R) of Alaska, said in a press release Tuesday. “Fortunately, it did not work.”

Never mind the science that show that wolves are essential to a healthy landscape.

Never mind the proof that wolves have improved the ecology of Yellowstone.

Never mind the research that shows that wolves have a positive impact on their prey species while human trophy hunting is what damages them and drives them to extinction.

Never mind the fact that wolves were here before us and we are in THEIR territory.

Never mind the truth that cattle ranching is an ecologically and financially unsustainable business that lives on the back of the taxpayer and the government while destroying entire ecosystems.

Never mind the statistics that show that wolves are responsible for less than 1% of livestock mortality while neglect, injury and disease are responsible for 75%.

Never mind the evidence that in Oregon where non lethal controls have been employed wolf-related livestock mortality plummeted while hunting in Idaho caused it to increase even after killing nearly have the state’s wolves… It’s just convenient and easy to blame the wolf.

“We’re the peak of the evolutionary food chain and the pinnacle of intelligence and it’s our manifest destiny to conquer, control and destroy as much as we possibly can…”

Yep, that’s pretty much the mentality of the wolf killers and the ranchers I’ve talked to in one of the most backward states I’ve ever visited. It’s depressing that people can be so willfully unenlightened. It’s almost like a religion of hatred and we can see where that has gotten the planet…

Only when the last wolf is dead, the last grizzly shot, the last mountain lion taken out with an arrow and the last bison rotting in a field will we wake up and say “oh god… what have we done?” And guess what… the sky will stare down back at us in silence and we will realize that we only have our hubris to blame…

Leave a comment for the Gray Wolves.

1. #StandforWolves by submitting your public comment

http://wolfwatcher.org/2013/06/americas-wolves-need-your-action/Thank you to Janet Hoben and Olaf Janssen
The Obama Administration and USFWS announced its plan to remove the gray wolf from the federal protections afforded by the Endangered Species Act in the lower 48 states because they say it is a ‘recovered species.’
Based on the evidence, we believe wolves need continued protection to expand into much of their historic range before they are removed from the Endangered Species List.
If you agree, visit our website (above) to find out how you can contribute to the national dialog by submitting a quick/easy public comment.
Then, let’s ‘educate, advocate, and participate’ by sharing and urging our family and friends to do the same…thank you!
(Resource: LA Times: http://bit.ly/149mD8k)

Only 70 Mexican gray wolves remain in the wild, making them one of the most endangered animals. (Photo: Joel Sartore)

My brother, Mexican wolf M806, was the alpha-male of the Bluestem pack. He thrived in the wild for 6 yrs before he was illegally shot & killed. Today, only 75 Mexican wolves live in the wild & the USFWS designates them as an “experimental, nonessential” population. This designation means that their recovery is trumped by the wishes of industry &/or recreation.Please tell USFWS that these wolves ARE essential to the recovery of their rare species. Our friends from Mexican gray wolves offer useful talking points here: http://bit.ly/1b7czl9THANK YOU!http://www.mexicanwolves.org/index.php/news/1046/51/Take-Action-Comments-Needed-to-Ensure-Mexican-Wolves-FutureTake Action: Comments Needed to Ensure Mexican Wolves’ Future!Proposed USFWS Rule changes regarding reintroduction into the wild of the Mexican Gray WolfRecently the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) proposed changes to the rules guiding the Mexican gray wolf reintroduction. The proposed rule is very important to the future of Mexican wolves in the wild. Please comment, using the following points: One very good and many very bad changes are proposed:The good change is to allow direct releases of Mexican wolves into parts of New Mexico and additional areas in Arizona. This change has been recommended by experts for over 10 years and can be made faster and with less bureaucratic delay than any other part of the proposed ruleTELL USFWS TO PUT THE REST OF THEIR PROPOSED RULE ON HOLD AND SPEED UP APPROVAL FOR MORE DIRECT RELEASES INTO ADDITIONAL AREAS.The bad changes include:By labeling all of the wild wolves as “nonessential” the USFWS ignores science and the reality of 15 years of experience with reintroducing wolves The USFWS claims that even if all of the 75 wolves in the wild are wiped out this is not “likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood” of recovery of Mexican wolves in the wild.When the current rule declared wolves in the wild “nonessential” there were only 11 wolves, recently released from a captive breeding program and they made up only 7% of all Mexican wolves in the world.Now the 75 wolves in the wild have up to four generations of experience in establishing packs and raising pups and are over 22% of all of the Mexican wolves in the world.After four more generations of captive breeding with few releases (only one in the last five years), scientists warn that there may be serious genetic problems making captive wolves less able to thrive in the wild.TELL USFWS THAT THE FOURTH GENERATION WILD LOBOS ARE NOT EXPENDABLE AND ARE AN ESSENTIAL PART OF RECOVERING THIS UNIQUE SUBSPECIES OF WOLFThe proposed rule puts the cart before the horse and should come with or after – not before – an updated recovery planUSFWS admits that their present, typewritten, 1982 recovery plan is not scientifically sound and does not meet current legal requirements – yet in its proposed rule USFWS continues to emphasize a woefully inadequate population of only 100 wolves in the wildWhen USFWS published the current rule in 1998 they said they expected to put out a new recovery plan for the public to comment on later that year; 15 years later, there still is no scientific or legally adequate recovery plan!TELL USFWS TO QUIT STALLING AND COMPLETE A COMPREHENSIVE RECOVERY PLAN – AND LET THE PUBLIC SEE IT – BEFORE DOING ANY TINKERING WITH THE CURRENT RULE (except for allowing wolves to be reintroduced into additional suitable places)USFWS’s decision on the proposed rule can help Mexican wolves finally thrive or can push them closer to extinction. Please submit your comments here and ask others who care about Mexican wolves to do the same. Thank you!http://www.mexicanwolves.org/index.phpContact us at:info@mexicanwolves.org http://www.mexicanwolves.org/index.php/news/1046/51/Take-Action-Comments-Needed-to-Ensure-Mexican-Wolves-Future

< O >

WOLVES, THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT, AND WHY SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY MATTERS

Shark week has come and gone, and as a marine scientist I feel most at home with these top predators, but it is another, equally charismatic predator species that is in the news. You can guess that because I said “charismatic” I wasn’t referring to Congress.

The possibility that the federal government would remove conservation measures for gray wolves and decide that they are no longer at risk of extinction is in the news not because of some new finding that wolf populations are recovering, but because of apparent political interference in the process of reviewing the science that is the basis for that determination.

HOW THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT WORKS

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in the Department of Interior is responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for most of the flora and fauna of the U.S. For marine species, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the Department of Commerce has the responsibility. I used to work as a scientist, and then as a lead regulator for the NMFS and have first-hand experience with implementing the ESA.

In a very real sense, the ESA is the protection of last resort for species of unique plants and animals that are determined to be in danger of extinction, in other words, lost forever from our natural heritage. ESA protections that should only come into play when all other conservation and management measures have not been successful at protecting that natural heritage.

Endangered species are often controversial, as you might expect. In every case that I am aware of, endangerment is due to the actions and activities of people. So removing threats to the continued existence of a species means that someone, somewhere will have to change their behavior.

While we might like to think we manage species and natural ecosystems, in reality we manage people and their impacts upon nature. For the marine species I worked with, from salmon to sturgeon to turtles, sea lions, seals, and whales there was incredible controversy on all sides, with some who wanted more protection and others who wanted less or none at all.

A species is “listed” as threatened or endangered under the ESA when a scientific review has determined its continued existence is in jeopardy. The law clearly lays out that science should determine the conservation status of the species — not economic considerations or political positions. These other factors can be taken into account when regulators develop a plan to protect the species.

If we are to protected biodiversity, that is how it should be, a decision based on science, not politics. This is why UCS continues to work with biologists and other scientists with relevant expertise to explain to Congress and the media that for the Endangered Species Act to be most effective, it must be grounded in the best available science.

Wolves are among the most controversial of endangered species, and are being considered for de-listing, that is, a conclusion that they are no longer threatened or in danger of extinction and ESA protections are no longer needed. Not only does the law require a full, objective scientific assessment, in such a controversial setting, common sense demands it.

That means the FWS should follow the best process of developing scientific advice. Do the analysis, present the data and conclusions, have it independently peer reviewed by experts in the field. Ensure that all conflicts of interest are disclosed. Make the information public as far as possible while respecting any privacy concerns. And when determining what action to take, be clear about its reasoning, without trying to manipulate the facts to support a pre-conceived position.

While these basic steps in developing the scientific advice were underway, the agency intervened in the process of selecting peer reviewers, excluding some that had already been critical of the scientific basis of the proposed rule on wolves. A significant number of leading experts in the field joined this group to criticize the agency in an open letter. Excluding critics from a peer review when they are highly qualified and respected in the field, and when they raise serious methodological and scientific issues, undermines the very purpose of a peer review. The whole point is to make sure that key methodological, theoretical or empirical errors are caught and addressed so that the agency acts on the best science available. Furthermore, and critical in this case, if the policy-makers manipulate the review process to try to influence the result, the integrity of the advice is lost.

Fortunately, the FWS has backed away from that position. What needs to happen now is to take the time to do a full assessment complete with a comprehensive, independent peer review, adhering strictly to the agency’s science integrity policy. It is vital to include a range of experts in the review and address the scientific issues that they raise. Let’s not endanger scientific advice in the name of trying to declare victory for species recovery. When that happens we should all howl.

Posted in: Science and Democracy, Scientific Integrity Tags: Endangered Species Act, Scientific IntegrityAbout the author: Andrew Rosenberg is the director of the UCS Center for Science and Democracy. He leads UCS’s efforts to advance the essential role that science, evidence-based decision making, and constructive debate play in American policy making. Subscribe to Andrew’s posts

THE UNSAVORY TRUTH BEHIND THE MOVE TO TAKE WOLVES OFF THE ENDANGERED LIST

The feds have dismissed three scientists from a wolf panel for, guess what, raising concerns about wolf delisting.

August 16, 2013 Tracy Ross

Just weeks after calling for the removal of gray wolves from the Endangered Species List, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is now under fire for allegations that it intentionally excluded three prominent scientists—whose views diverged from the Service’s on delisting—from an upcoming peer review process.

In June, Fish and Wildlife called to delist gray wolves across the Lower 48 states, leaving an exception for the struggling Mexican wolf in the Southwest. Agency director Dan Ashe told the media that the gray wolf had recovered to the point that it could thrive and even enlarge its territory without federal oversight. Several wolf advocates and some members of Congress disagreed. Once wolves are delisted, their management will fall to individual states.

But in order for the delisting process to continue, federal law requires that a team of scientists evaluate the basis for the motion. As such, Fish and Wildlife hired a private contractor to select and oversee the peer review panel. According to Fish and Wildlife spokesman Gavin Shire, the agency isn’t supposed to know who the panelists are. But the Associated Press revealed that the contractor chosen to assemble the panel had provided a list of candidates that redacted their names but included their professional resumes. Armed with this information, the Service found three esteemed wolf biologists, who—and this is the key part—had expressed concern with the gray wolf delisting plan. They also, along with 16 other prominent scientists, had signed a letter expressing this concern. Shortly thereafter, Fish and Wildlife effectively “delisted” the three scientists from the panel.

The three are identified as Dr. John Vucetich, Dr. Robert Wayne, and Dr. Roland Kays. All have published extensively on the wolf and are considered preeminent experts. Yet the Center for Biological Diversity’s Bret Hartl reports that the Service rescinded their invitations because, in the agency’s words, they have an “unacceptable affiliation with an advocacy position.”

Op-Ed: What We Learned From Living With Wolves for 6 Years

Vucetich and Wayne told the AP that they had received emails from the contractor saying they were being excluded from the review team because they had signed the letter. Kays said he had been “solicited as a possible panelist” but later told he wouldn’t be needed.

Vucetich, a biologist and wolf specialist, told the AP it was “absolutely wrong” to disqualify an expert from a peer review team because of previous statements about a proposed policy. Any competent scientist will approach such an assignment with an open mind and be willing to alter his or her opinion if new information justifies it, he said.

According to the AP, Shire declined comment on the dealings with the three scientists, saying the matter was under review. But he said the Fish and Wildlife Service “wanted to be particularly sure that the people we got for this process were objective and unbiased” because the wolf is such a “highly polarizing subject.”

Brett Hartl, however, says that “peer review of the whole delisting question is complicated because the Service has injected so many improper policy considerations into this delisting proposal.” As Dan Ashe, Fish and Wildlife Service director, told the AP, “Science is an important part of this decision, but really the key is the policy question of when is a species recovered. Does the wolf have to occupy all the habitat that is available to it in order for it to be recovered? Our answer to that question is no.”

Yet under Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act, the decision to delist a species is required to be based on the best available science. “Had the Service followed this mandate, the best course of action would have been to develop a nationwide recovery plan for wolves using the best available science,” Hartl said. “Instead, the Service basically asked the States whether they wanted wolves or not and based its decision to delist the wolf on these political considerations.“

According to the AP, the contract with the outside firm has been put on hold and the peer review procedure will start anew. It’s unclear whether the delay will affect the timetable for making a final decision on removing wolf protections, which is expected by June 2014.

But Hartl says that by injecting itself so deeply into the peer reviewer selection process, the entire peer review of the wolf delisting is likely to be tainted. “If the Service continues to oversee the review, then no matter how it comes out, one side or the other will be suspicious about whether the peer reviewers were objective.” Hartl recommends that the Service take a different course and have a scientific society, such as the American Society of Mammalogists or the Society for Conservation Biology, take over the peer review process and conduct it without Service involvement.

BISBEE — Wolves. Just mention the word and depending on how one views predatory American animals, there are bound to be those who are in awe of the stamina, power and grace of the animal who once roamed the West in numbers and those who are fearful of its agile and deadly ability to kill.

As the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to open protected areas in New Mexico and Arizona for the reintroduction of the smaller Mexican Wolf, an uproar of opposition has been raised by ranchers who cannot afford to lose stock and who fear for their children and pets.

That was obvious as the Cochise County Board of Supervisors invited the public to make official comments on the proposal during Tuesday’s meeting. Though FWS is considering the release in the county above Interstate 10, three of the four of the scheduled public hearings are not even in Arizona. The only one is scheduled in Phoenix on a date yet to be determined, said Kim Mulhern, hydrologist and wildlife consultant for the county. That was the reason the Supervisors decided to hold a public hearing so that the voices of the county could be heard.

Mulhern noted the FWS proposed de-listing of the Gray Wolf as an endangered species, but was in the process of listing the Mexican Wolf, a smaller version of the gray, as endangered.

FWS is proposing to expand the Mexican wolf’s protected areas on state and federal public lands, Mulhern explained. The proposed rule would allow releases into all areas of central Arizona north of I-10. The Service is also considering an option that is currently not in the proposed rule to expand the geographic boundaries for the Mexican wolf down to the US/Mexico border in Arizona and New Mexico, affecting all areas of the county.

The basic proposed rule, if the Mexican Wolf is listed as endangered, would permit a direct release from captivity to the wild throughout the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area, which runs through the central part of New Mexico from its border with Texas to the Arizona border with California, explained Mulhern. FWS expects the Mexican wolves, a sub-species of the gray wolf, to disperse naturally from the Blue Range into the expanded protection area on both federal and state lands, as well as some private land holdings.

Mary Darling, an environmental consultant, said Mexico had released some of these wolves into remote areas of the country about 20 miles south of Douglas, and there was a possibility of wolves making their ways north into the U.S. and up the San Bernardino Valley and the Chiricahua Mountains. If the FWS does re-list the Mexican as endangered, then those who cross the border would be considered protected and could not be harmed. It also would effect grazing leases ranchers may have with federal and state lands.

The Arizona Game and Fish Department has been concerned in recent years about the decreases in deer and antelope populations, so there is a conflict regarding the availability of sufficient large prey for all of the current predators in the area, noted Mulhern. With the addition of Mexican wolves, lack of prey would likely cause them to resort to preying on livestock, pets, and other non-wild prey.

Sherry Barrett, FWS Mexican wolf coordinator, faced a hostile crowd at the hearing, yet moved forward with her presentation on the proposed reintroduction of the endangered species.

“I recognize that ranchers are not in favor of the reintroduction of the wolf,” Barrett added. “However, in polls, people want to see the wolves reestablished in their former environments, even though for most, the wolves would not be in their backyards.”

It is expected that these wolves would prefer smaller game such as javelina or deer. However, depending on the numbers of prey animals, it is possible for these wolves to take down stock and impact the ranching economy.

In cases of proven predations, FWS could allow the killing of the wolf by authorized personnel, said Barrett.

In the standing-room only meeting room, rancher after rancher came forward to express their confusion and dissatisfaction with the decision to incorporate any part of Cochise County into the reintroduction areas. So did state Sen. Gail Griffin.

Gilbert Reeves, Huachuca City, said he was not a rancher, but could relate to their concerns. He voiced concern for his great-grandchild who could become a target for wolves.

“We don’t need this,” Reeves stated. “Can we eat these wolves? They’re no good for anything. I don’t see why we even have them here. I think the American public rolls over and is silent too often. I’ve rolled over for my last time. It’s time to stand up and fight, people … Let’s put a stop to all this foolishness … Shame on the federal government. They’re here to help us.”

Reeves claimed that shelters had to be constructed in New Mexico so that children waiting for school buses would be safe from wolves.

Steven Smith, Elfrida, stated that the federal government was taking away ranchers’ ability to manage their livestock “in a profitable manner,” which “infringes on our pursuit of happiness,” and “serves no useful purpose for our county or residents.”

Only three people were in favor of the reintroduction project Liza Weissler, Bob Wick and Bob Weissler with the Friends of the San Pedro.

Wick said he thought that this corner of Arizona was blessed in that there was such a rich diversity of wildlife, something he did not have growing up in Ohio. He suggested that the reintroduction of the Mexican wolf would add to the tourism industry as people would want to come and watch the wolf packs. He also told the ranchers that he was “disappointed” that they were not reimbursed for stock they lost to predators.

Bob Weissler reasoned that if Mexican wolves did cross the border, they would probably move on because there was not enough prey. Additionally, the Defenders of Wildlife have a fund for compensation of stock that have been proven to be killed by wolves. When wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone Park, for example, the coyote population that had been preying on smaller animals plummeted and those species came back. The elk herds became more robust as the old and sick were taken down by the wolf packs.

“We’re interested in putting predator/prey balance back into the wilderness and our wild areas because there are unforeseen indirect impacts,” Bob Weissler stated.

All the comments received through the public hearing will be forwarded to the FWS by the supervisors so that Cochise County residents will have a voice in the process. The supervisors approved a letter to FWS earlier in the meeting stating that they were against any wolves being introduced into the county.

General Information

The Gray Wolf, being a keystone predator, is an integral component of the ecosystems to which it typically belongs. The wide range of habitats in which wolves can thrive reflects their adaptability as a species, and includes temperate forests, mountains, tundra, taiga, and grasslands.

Population detail

The FWS is currently monitoring the following populations of the Gray wolf

Population location: U.S.A.: All of AL, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MO, MS, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NV, NY, OK, PA, RI, SC, TN, VA, VT and WV; those portions of AZ, NM, and TX not included in an experimental population as set forth below; and portions of IA, IN, IL, ND, OH, OR, SD, UT, and WA as follows: (1) Southern IA, (that portion south of the centerline of Highway 80); (2) Most of IN (that portion south of the centerline of Highway 80); (3) Most of IL (that portion south of the centerline of Highway 80); (4) Western ND (that portion south and west of the Missouri River upstream to Lake Sakakawea and west of the centerline of Highway 83 from Lake Sakakawea to the Canadian border); (5) Most of OH (that portion south of the centerline of Highway 80 and east of the Maumee River at Toledo); (6) Western OR (that portion of OR west of the centerline of Highway 395 and Highway 78 north of Burns Junction and that portion of OR west of the centerline of Highway 95 south of Burns Junction); (7) Western SD (that portion south and west of the Missouri River); (8) Most of Utah (that portion of UT south and west of the centerline of Highway 84 and that portion of UT south of Highway 80 from Echo to the UT / WY Stateline); and (9) Western WA (that portion of WA west of the centerline of Highway 97 and Highway 17 north of Mesa and that portion of WA west of the centerline of Highway 395 south of Mesa). Mexico.Listing status: Endangered This population has been proposed for delisting

Population location: Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment; Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan; the eastern half of North Dakota and South Dakota; the northern half of Iowa; the northern portions of Illinois and Indiana; and the northwestern portion of Ohio.Listing status: Delisted due to Recovery

» Life History

Habitat Requirements

Wolves are habitat generalists and lived thorughout the northern hemisphere. They only require ungulate prey and human-casued mortality rates that are not excessive.

Food Habits

Ungulates [wild and domestic] are the typical prey of wolves, but wolves also readily scavenge. Beaver are among the smallest important prey but wolves can utilize smaller mamals, birds, and fish.

Movement / Home Range

Wolves packs defend their territories from other wolves. Territory size is a function of prey density and can range from 25-1,500 square miles. Both male and female wolves disperse at equal rates and equal distances, sometimes >600 miles.

Reproductive Strategy

Normally first breed as yearings and once a year in February. One to 10 pups [normally ~5] are born 63 days later. Pups normally stay with pack until > 1 yrear old.

» Other Resources

NatureServe Explorer Species Reports — NatureServe Explorer is a source for authoritative conservation information on more than 50,000 plants, animals and ecological communtities of the U.S and Canada. NatureServe Explorer provides in-depth information on rare and endangered species, but includes common plants and animals too. NatureServe Explorer is a product of NatureServe in collaboration with the Natural Heritage Network.

ITIS Reports — ITIS (the Integrated Taxonomic Information System) is a source for authoritative taxonomic information on plants, animals, fungi, and microbes of North America and the world.